[BigJake]

Its a Jager frame. I say that with absolute certitude and expertise. This article is mine. Armi Jager Dakota Single Actions

The other thing I'm interested in are Great Western revolvers, and me and my collecting fraternity there spotted a fake Great Western done up as a "Gunsmoke prop gun" in the last couple years. It was also a restamped Jager.

I have a Gun that I believe is a Armi Jager Dakota. It's a .357/.38 and nickel plated with some Ajax Stag Grips. Locks up tighter than a Bank Vault. The only marking on it are the serial numbers and last 3 on the cylinder and barrel and a 29 on the loading gate. There is no Proof marks anywhere or caliber markings. Feels and works just like a Colt.

 

[area51guy]

I have both a "Dakota" and a "New Dakota". The Dakota has a 4 digit serial number while the New Dakota has a 5 digit serial with a capital SA above the serial number. The frame/hammer of the New Dakota do look very much like the one being questioned. However, on the lower left side below the cylinder, the Dakota has some proof stamps while the New Dakota has a copy of the Colt proof dates.

 

[gazelle]

^ Your New Dakota is an Armi San Marco

 

[weagle99]

Actually, quite a few 3rd gen backstraps from the '80's look like that.

I have looked at alot of 3rds and never have seen ears that 'fat' for lack of a better term. Most of the 3rds have an odd shape but it isn't that shape.

Would be happy to be proven wrong if you can provide pictures.

 

[area51guy]

^ Your New Dakota is an Armi San Marco

Yep, I knew that, but thanks for the info anyway!

 

[Wes Terner]

That is a Jager Dakota frame, cylinder, and hammer (and probably lockwork) married to a Colt 3rd gen barrel and gripframe.

I agree I was almost suckered into one just like it! Long time ago 😠😠😠

 

[OD#3]

I have looked at alot of 3rds and never have seen ears that 'fat' for lack of a better term. Most of the 3rds have an odd shape but it isn't that shape.

Would be happen to be proven wrong if you can provide pictures.

No Sir, I think you may have just proven me wrong instead. After taking a closer look at the OP's pics, they are--indeed--quite "fat". But, determined to salvage my reputation after having made such a cock-sure pronouncement earlier, I've been scouring all of my stored photos and even online auction sites. I can't find any ears that are as "fat" front to rear as these. So I must stand corrected. Good eye.

 

[weagle99]

No Sir, I think you may have just proven me wrong instead. After taking a closer look at the OP's pics, they are--indeed--quite "fat". But, determined to salvage my reputation after having made such a cock-sure pronouncement earlier, I've been scouring all of my stored photos and even online auction sites. I can't find any ears that are as "fat" front to rear as these. So I must stand corrected. Good eye.

Thanks I have probably spent way too much time looking at these things haha. Have a great evening